^ No way in hell Atlanta or Dallas can provide the urban experience of Seattle. Not even close. Transit is meaningless without addressing land use and walkability

I'm not saying I know whether Bezos cares about any of this, but sunbelt metros just got it wrong from day one, and I don't see how they can feasibly reverse any of these poor decisions

Agreed. There is no universe where Atlanta or Dallas have transit comparable to Seattle. I've said this before, but most of Chicago's suburbs are built out at higher densities than the cities of Atlanta and Dallas. Transit use sucks in the burbs. Metra is great, Pace sucks.

^ No way in hell Atlanta or Dallas can provide the urban experience of Seattle. Not even close. Transit is meaningless without addressing land use and walkability

So now we're moving the goal posts.

Atlanta and Dallas are undergoing an unprecedented amount of high density infill in their urban cores. As stated before, only someone who hasn't spent a decent amount of time in either city recently would foolishly think otherwise.

Getting back to transit, Seatlle only has 2 light rail lines and a commuter rail. Atlanta has 4 subway lines that cover the city and a portion of the northern / eastern suburbs, while Dallas has 4 light rail lines and a commuter rail. So again, you can't convince me that Atlanta and Dallas' transit system wouldn't be no just as sufficient for Amazon as Seattle's.

Atlanta and Dallas are undergoing an unprecedented amount of high density infill in their urban cores. As stated before, only someone who hasn't spent a decent amount of time in either city recently would foolishly think otherwise.

Getting back to transit, Seatlle only has 2 light rail lines and a commuter rail. Atlanta has 4 subway lines that cover the city and a portion of the northern / eastern suburbs, while Dallas has 4 light rail lines and a commuter rail. So again, you can't convince me that Atlanta and Dallas' transit system wouldn't be no just as sufficient for Amazon as Seattle's.

The building boom in downtown Atlanta and downtown Dallas is a fraction of the growth in these metros. These are metros that are pushing outward at a far greater clip than upward. You can't have a successful downtown if it's not functioning as the core of your region. You can build a bunch of high rise office buildings and multi-family housing, but if everyone needs a car and the overwhelming majority of jobs are concentrated outside the principal city, what's the point? These places end up throwing money at an ideal without implementing any regional strategy or guidelines. It doesn't matter that Dallas and Atlanta have more lines than Seattle. Seattle's built environment is considerably more efficient and the transit system is designed to add value, not to serve as a talking point for boosters online.

Atlanta and Dallas are undergoing an unprecedented amount of high density infill in their urban cores. As stated before, only someone who hasn't spent a decent amount of time in either city recently would foolishly think otherwise.

Getting back to transit, Seatlle only has 2 light rail lines and a commuter rail. Atlanta has 4 subway lines that cover the city and a portion of the northern / eastern suburbs, while Dallas has 4 light rail lines and a commuter rail. So again, you can't convince me that Atlanta and Dallas' transit system wouldn't be no just as sufficient for Amazon as Seattle's.

Atlanta could have 12 rail lines and a donkey for all I care, that kind of nonsense is meaningless without land use. San Francisco, as an example, has trolleys and Bart, so on paper it sure sounds like it's comparable to Dallas or Atlanta transit-wise. But walk around in all three cities and say that they're comparable with a straight face.

Transit is just a cute little choo choo train that Uncle Sam bought for you when there's no destination, and no appropriate land usage and walkability.

I think I'm done with this thread. The Chicago boosters simply can't be reasoned with, based on the most recent posts.

Chicago has been mentioned a handful of times in the past page or so by people from every corner of the US. It wasn't even mentioned in the posts that seem to have triggered this response. No one is boosting. We're talking about the RFP and importance of transit. You said you found an article that stated that a sprawling metro was preferred but didn't have time to find it. You've posted numerous times since and you're now trying to call other people boosters? If you make a point on this forum filled with your fellow city-loving nerds, expect them to scrutinize every claim and hit you with a rebuttal. That's called having a discussion, not boosting.

Let's just discuss some real facts. The pic below is from the Census Bureau from 2014- 2015 and the illustration details US Metros with the highest Gross Population increase for this time period. The Top 3: Houston, Dallas and Atlanta and they have virtually remained in those spots the past 10 years and are forecasted to continue to have the highest gross population increases for the next 30 years. Before some of the Austin or Nashville folks dispute my claim - note I am saying GROSS increase, not highest % increase.

So if I was Jeff f'en Bezos and I am deciding where to put my HQ2 that will need 50,000 employees I would probably pay special attention to those cities that have already demonstrated they have a high propensity to attract people to their city before Amazon and without a doubt Atlanta and Dallas will be in the top just as we are for most corporate relocations.

We're all just speculating, including those who think (for whatever reason) that Chicago or Philadelphia have the edge.

RE: #1 The RFP specifically stated "strong technical talent." Technical talent is generally defined as those who specialize in the STEM fields.

RE #2 I'm on my phone now, so I don't have access to the links. But there was recently an article that featured comments from one of the executives, Jeff Wilke (sp) who stated they're looking for a location different from the Pacific NW to attract a different employee. Again, It doesn't get much more different from Seattle than Atlanta or Dallas.

There was also a Bloomberg article where some Amazon insiders leaked out that the reason they started the whole RFP thing is because there was disagreement on a location. While the executives liked Boston, the employees wanted an environment where they can actually afford a decent suburban living without having to constantly deal with a fast paced environment. Bloomberg could be wrong, but it's pretty credible source and I'm sure there's some truth to that article.

BTW, both Atlanta and Dallas offer decent urban living these days with the amenities that Amazon desires. This is not 1997, they're completely different cities today.

RE #3 Yes, that is pure speculation on my part. Businesses do like to keep things simple and avoid duplicating things if possible. If they just can negotiate a bigger volume based discount with one airline (versus having to deal with a bunch of different airlines), it may be a plus.

BTW, I could be wrong, but I don't think Alaska Airlines has the flight frequency that Delta has nor the international connections Delta has (although they may go to more domestic locations).

I tend to agree, I don't think those cities of Dallas or Atlanta would be disqualified because of transit, maybe some assurances that investment is increasing. That single item if it were equal, a place like Dallas may have a huge upper hand. I've had DFW as my top speculated choice all along. I don't think Amazon is in for a project like Detroit and for whatever reason I keep thinking they don't necessarily want to be on the east coast.

__________________
He said he'd cure your ills, but he didn't and he never will

Let's just discuss some real facts. The pic below is from the Census Bureau from 2014- 2015 and the illustration details US Metros with the highest Gross Population increase for this time period. The Top 3: Houston, Dallas and Atlanta and they have virtually remained in those spots the past 10 years and are forecasted to continue to have the highest gross population increases for the next 30 years. Before some of the Austin or Nashville folks dispute my claim - note I am saying GROSS increase, not highest % increase.

So if I was Jeff f'en Bezos and I am deciding where to put my HQ2 that will need 50,000 employees I would probably pay special attention to those cities that have already demonstrated they have a high propensity to attract people to their city before Amazon and without a doubt Atlanta and Dallas will be in the top just as we are for most corporate relocations.

Noticeably absent are Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philly and Boston.

I'd imagine that the top growing cities list is VERY different from the list of cities the world's top-performing tech people are willing to move to. That latter will skew toward young and high-income for starters.

That said, if a key goal is to attract people who won't go to Seattle, maybe stuff like the affordability of SFRs is important, in which case Atlanta and Dallas might be good candidates.

Let's just discuss some real facts. The pic below is from the Census Bureau from 2014- 2015 and the illustration details US Metros with the highest Gross Population increase for this time period. The Top 3: Houston, Dallas and Atlanta and they have virtually remained in those spots the past 10 years and are forecasted to continue to have the highest gross population increases for the next 30 years. Before some of the Austin or Nashville folks dispute my claim - note I am saying GROSS increase, not highest % increase.

So if I was Jeff f'en Bezos and I am deciding where to put my HQ2 that will need 50,000 employees I would probably pay special attention to those cities that have already demonstrated they have a high propensity to attract people to their city before Amazon and without a doubt Atlanta and Dallas will be in the top just as we are for most corporate relocations.

Noticeably absent are Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philly and Boston.

Chicago is larger than Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston. Phildelphia is larger than Atlanta and comparable to both Dallas and Houston. Nothing last forever. That very much applies to rocket-speed growth. The COL in Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston is now equal to Chicago and Philadelphia. Pittsburgh is considerably more affordable and Boston considerably more expensive.

We're at a point now where it's unlikely Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston continue to put up the numbers they have been. The COL advantage is gone. The white collar culture is just as strong or stronger in metros like Chicago and Philadelphia. Places like Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, Birmingham, Louisville, Cincinnati, etc. will likely make aggressive campaigns to poach jobs from Atlanta, Dallas, or Houston in the same way these cities poached jobs from elsewhere.

You don't boom indefinitely and what works today is not guaranteed to work tomorrow. That's why we see such a shift in our built environments after 1950. I don't understand why so few posters here comprehend that. Chicago went from a frontier town to the second largest city in less than 40 years. City politicians were planning for 4+m residents by 1960. The city was growing at double digits per year...until it wasn't.

Detroit posted growth rates in excess of 35% per decade for 11 straight decades. Detroit wasn't going from 10,000 to 20,000 residents. It was growing from 285k to 500k. Where is that growth now?

Rapid growth brings about a lot of positive change, but it also brings to light the less attractive elements of a city. No city or region is immune to this.

Atlanta could have 12 rail lines and a donkey for all I care, that kind of nonsense is meaningless without land use. San Francisco, as an example, has trolleys and Bart, so on paper it sure sounds like it's comparable to Dallas or Atlanta transit-wise. But walk around in all three cities and say that they're comparable with a straight face.

Transit is just a cute little choo choo train that Uncle Sam bought for you when there's no destination, and no appropriate land usage and walkability.

quarter of a million boardings a day is quite a cute little choo choo train

Booming yesterday can be directly counterproductive to booming today. For example your infrastructure can fill up.

An interesting fact that boosts my ego...the 2016 ACS says Chicago's drive-alone commute percentage was 49.5%, and Seattle's was 49.2%. (Ok if Chicago's municipality was a smaller percentage of the city it would outdo Seattle, but there you go. Edit: Atlanta was 68.6%.)

Although not listed on this table, from the same report, Chicago produced 36,459 tech degrees from 2011-2015, and added 40,740 tech jobs, for a net gain of 4,281. And in terms of millennial population change (millennials aged 20-29 living in downtown areas) from 2010-2015, Atlanta had 9.3% growth, Houston had 8.5% growth, DFW had 3.8% growth, while Chicago had 1.4% decline. The national average is 4.6% growth. The top 5 are Seattle, Raleigh-Durham, Toronto, SF, and Atlanta.

Transit and walkability are meaningless when you don't have the talent pool available to be transported to or walk to the HQ2. Amazon isn't looking for the city that is the most urban. It is looking for the city with the most available tech talent that also happens to be in an environment urban and affordable enough to attract and retain a 50k employee workforce.

Although not listed on this table, from the same report, Chicago produced 36,459 tech degrees from 2011-2015, and added 40,740 tech jobs, for a net gain of 4,281. And in terms of millennial population change (millennials aged 20-29 living in downtown areas) from 2010-2015, Atlanta had 9.3% growth, Houston had 8.5% growth, DFW had 3.8% growth, while Chicago had 1.4% decline. The national average is 4.6% growth. The top 5 are Seattle, Raleigh-Durham, Toronto, SF, and Atlanta.

Transit and walkability are meaningless when you don't have the talent pool available to be transported to or walk to the HQ2. Amazon isn't looking for the city that is the most urban. It is looking for the city with the most available tech talent that also happens to be in an environment urban and affordable enough to attract and retain a 50k employee workforce.

Chicago is larger than Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston. Phildelphia is larger than Atlanta and comparable to both Dallas and Houston. Nothing last forever. That very much applies to rocket-speed growth. The COL in Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston is now equal to Chicago and Philadelphia. Pittsburgh is considerably more affordable and Boston considerably more expensive.

We're at a point now where it's unlikely Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston continue to put up the numbers they have been. The COL advantage is gone. The white collar culture is just as strong or stronger in metros like Chicago and Philadelphia. Places like Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, Birmingham, Louisville, Cincinnati, etc. will likely make aggressive campaigns to poach jobs from Atlanta, Dallas, or Houston in the same way these cities poached jobs from elsewhere.

You don't boom indefinitely and what works today is not guaranteed to work tomorrow. That's why we see such a shift in our built environments after 1950. I don't understand why so few posters here comprehend that. Chicago went from a frontier town to the second largest city in less than 40 years. City politicians were planning for 4+m residents by 1960. The city was growing at double digits per year...until it wasn't.

Detroit posted growth rates in excess of 35% per decade for 11 straight decades. Detroit wasn't going from 10,000 to 20,000 residents. It was growing from 285k to 500k. Where is that growth now?

Rapid growth brings about a lot of positive change, but it also brings to light the less attractive elements of a city. No city or region is immune to this.

Atlanta, Dallas and Houston's growth is more a function of their economic vitality than their COL - and that has been the case from the past - to today and into the future. If cost of living was a driver of population growth, Pittsburgh and Detroit would be putting up some big numbers. Also Chicago, Boston, Philly and Pittsburgh's slow growth, no growth and decline are a function of the mobility of the talent pool. Only until the 1990's did many people migrate from the city they were born. Now most people in the US if they chose to live in another city are able to move and find employment with relative ease compared to 30 years ago. Thanks internet!

I know most of you living in these northern urban utopia's with your complex and vast mass transit systems find it utterly appalling anyone would chose to live in these wayward Sunbelt cities.

I can tell you one reason I did not move to Atlanta and that is for my politics because I am a "militant" Liberal. The reason I moved to Atlanta from Washington DC is because I was able to move from a shitty 4 level townhouse to owning a house in Buckhead with half an acre of land and I still had money left over to join a fancy country club. Most importantly, I hate fucking COLD WEATHER!

I suspect the other Northern transplants that come here feel the same as I did and this is why Atlanta will continue to be one of the fasting growing metros in the US well into the future.